See this fascinating brief, filed February 25 in the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v Reed, 09-559. This is the case over whether states should make public the names and addresses of people who sign petitions.

Even if you normally don’t read briefs, consider reading this one. It is 70 pages. If you prefer to print briefs in order to read them (instead of reading them on a computer screen), and if you only want to read the text itself, you can skip printing the first 13 pages, which are various non-text Tables of Authorities.

The case will be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28.

The U.S. Supreme Court has set a conference date of March 19 for Simmons v Galvin, 09-920, the case over whether the Voting Rights Act applies to state laws that ban ex-felons or felons from registering to vote. The case is from Massachusetts. Last year, the 1st circuit had ruled 2-1 that the Voting Rights Act was never meant to pertain to that type of state law.

On February 24, U.S. Senator Chris Dodd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress to curtail independent expenditures about candidates for federal office. It would add this Constitutional Amendment:

Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of exdenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and (2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.